Yetman v. Capital District Transportation Authority, 669 F. App'x 594

Yetman was a CDTA bus driver (part-time 2000, full-time 2004) with a documented history of attendance problems and at least one prior termination and reinstatement.
She repeatedly requested and received FMLA leave for herself and family; CDTA acknowledged and granted timely, express FMLA requests.
On June 26, 2010, Yetman missed work without claiming FMLA; CDTA phone records contradicted her claim that she timely notified the dispatcher.
Yetman resigned effective July 6, 2010 (she alleges constructive discharge), citing stress from family issues; she later applied to be rehired several times but was not rehired.
She filed suit in 2012 alleging FMLA interference/retaliation (relating to her employment) and ADA/NYSHRL disability discrimination and FMLA retaliation for failure-to-rehire decisions.
District court granted summary judgment to CDTA and supervisor Palmer; Second Circuit affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness of FMLA claims arising during employment	Yetman argued FMLA interference/constructive discharge from period of employment	CDTA argued claims accrued in 2010 and suit filed >2 years later, so time-barred absent willfulness	Court: Claims time-barred under 2-year statute; no evidence of willful violation, so not within 3-year toll
Classification of absences as FMLA	Yetman contended some absences were improperly not designated as FMLA	CDTA showed all timely, express FMLA requests were granted; disputed absences were not timely requested	Held: At best negligence in classification; not willful FMLA violation
Failure-to-rehire: disability discrimination (ADA/NYSHRL)	Yetman argued non-rehire was based on her disability and prior FMLA use; decision referenced her "overall work record" and CDTA knew of her disability history	CDTA argued non-rehire was due to legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons (attendance, misconduct)	Held: Yetman failed to make prima facie showing of discriminatory/retaliatory intent and failed to show pretext
Failure-to-rehire: FMLA retaliation	Yetman argued rehiring decisions were retaliatory for earlier FMLA leave	CDTA maintained rehiring decisions were based on job performance and attendance unrelated to protected leave	Held: No inference of retaliation; McDonnell Douglas framework not satisfied; summary judgment for defendants

Young v. County of Fulton, 160 F.3d 899 (2d Cir. 1998) (standard of review for summary judgment)
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
Potenza v. City of New York, 365 F.3d 165 (2d Cir. 2004) (applying McDonnell Douglas to FMLA claims)
Davis v. New York City Dep’t of Educ., 804 F.3d 231 (2d Cir. 2015) (applying McDonnell Douglas to ADA claims)
Forrest v. Jewish Guild for the Blind, 3 N.Y.3d 295 (N.Y. 2004) (applying McDonnell Douglas to NYSHRL claims)